Libertarian Hero Ron Paul Blames US for 9/11

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBkMzQ2MTJmOTFmZWM4NjJhYjg3MTY1MzRhMGU0Y2Y=

Sick.

He is running as a GOP candidate in order to avoid the embarassment of getting 0% of the vote, as his predecessors have. But this is his plan to win the presidency?

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBkMzQ2MTJmOTFmZWM4NjJhYjg3MTY1MzRhMGU0Y2Y=

Sick.

So is your spin on this.,

From the article.

“No, I blamed bad policy over 50 years that leads to anti-Americanism,” Paul said. “That’s little bit different from saying ‘blame America.’ Don’t put those words in my mouth.”

“But the policies were bad American policies?”

“We’ve had an interventionist foreign policy for 50 years that has come back to haunt us,” Paul continued. “So that’s not ‘Blame America’ — that’s demagoguing, distorting issues…That’s deceitful to say those kinds of things.”

He is running as a GOP candidate in order to avoid the embarassment of getting 0% of the vote, as his predecessors have. But this is his plan to win the presidency?

Libertarians tend to have an Isolationist strain running through their political rhetoric. Under that general principle, any foreign entanglements, to include things like "NATO" are held to be as one level of evil or another. Propping up Israel, to the tune of 5-10 billion dollars per year of US tax revenue is massively antithetical to small government, stay out of others' business, sensibilities.

It isn't that far a reach to trace a root cause of the US being a target to general Arab discontent, of which Israel is a massive symbol.

Osama is but a symptom, albeit a malignant one.

Nat Rev has become a bit of a neocon shill rag, which means that unless passing the smell test, it provides a forum for bashing "those not of the true faith."

DR

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is a No Spin Zone. I only report the facts. He said what he said.

 

[g4macdad]

This is a No Spin Zone. I only report the facts. He said what he said.

They only call those facts on your planet.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is a No Spin Zone. I only report the facts. He said what he said.

Really?

“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” Paul said. “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

I see you reported that.

Or did you?

No, I blamed bad policy over 50 years that leads to anti-Americanism,” Paul said. “That’s little bit different from saying ‘blame America.’ Don’t put those words in my mouth.”

Libertarian Hero Ron Paul Blames US for 9/11

You parroted someone else's words, not Paul's, in your post title.

No spin? Sure thing, O'Scrut.

DR

 

[Renfield]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBkMzQ2MTJmOTFmZWM4NjJhYjg3MTY1MzRhMGU0Y2Y=

Sick.

He is running as a GOP candidate in order to avoid the embarassment of getting 0% of the vote, as his predecessors have. But this is his plan to win the presidency?

Here's a clip of what Paul really said, from YouTube, so you don't have to have the National Review tell you what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

 

[Oliver]

This is a No Spin Zone. I only report the facts. He said what he said.

And Paul is right:

_______________________________________________________________


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true

Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show
Trip Followed Criticism Of Chemical Arms' Use

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Write

Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.

Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement on chemical weapons, or CW, "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs," according to a cable to Rumsfeld from then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz.
*snip*

Full Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true

_______________________________________________________________


Original Source:
NEW YORK TIMES (purchasable):
A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making

Internet Source:
http://www.phoenixprojectpac.us/user/A Tyrant 40 Years.pdf

Monday, December 15, 2003

Remember: Saddam was our man

NEW YORK TIMES
March 14, 2003, Friday

EDITORIAL DESK

A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making

By Roger Morris ( Op-Ed ) 980 words
SEATTLE -- On the brink of war, both supporters and critics of United States policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America's dealings with Saddam Hussein, justifiable or not, began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's.

Both sides are mistaken. Washington's policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. Forty years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.

*snip*

Full Article:
http://www.phoenixprojectpac.us/user/A Tyrant 40 Years.pdf

 

[Darth Rotor]

Here's a clip of what Paul really said, from YouTube, so you don't have to have the National Review tell you what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

Page 2 of the Nat Rev article was York's exercise in literary analingus upon Rudi G, so thanks for the alternate resource.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

And Paul is right:

Oliver, that is irrelevant. I suggest you research Jethro Tull, a band, and the album Thick as a Brick.

Ponder on why.

Osama Bin Laden didn't give two farthings about Saddam, other than as an obstacle to his aims, nor Iran. Osama got himself a massive cause celebre by the US troops showing up in Saudi, and on them remaining there after the first Iraq war, on the premise that Crusader scum did not belong on the holy soil of Arabia, the land of the Prophet, the land of Mecca and Medinah, which was part of the excuse/fig leaf for the US to toss Saddam out of Kuwait: protecting the holy land from Saddam's possible future expansion. (Consider that the Saudi King took this line, as part of the fun.) Osama's objection to American soldiers on Saudi soil sold well in some parts of the Arab Street, and was a source of friction between him and members of the Royal Family, Saud, to the point that it resulted in Osama's exile.

DR

 

[billydkid]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBkMzQ2MTJmOTFmZWM4NjJhYjg3MTY1MzRhMGU0Y2Y=

Sick.

He is running as a GOP candidate in order to avoid the embarassment of getting 0% of the vote, as his predecessors have. But this is his plan to win the presidency?

Truth is not a real major consideration for you is it. Not really a surprise there.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I need to up my contact prescription. I could have sworn this thread was "Libertarian Hero RuPaul Blames US for 9/11" and wondered a) why RuPaul would say such a thing, and b) when did RuPaul become a Libertarian hero. Not to mention "running as a GOP candidate".

 

[Darth Rotor]

Truth is not a real major consideration for you is it. Not really a surprise there.

Well, since his source is York, he may just be guilty by association. From page 2:

So in the end, the candidate who made a big move, who came out of nowhere to win new name recognition was…Ron Paul. But it’s probably not the sort of name recognition Republican presidential candidates want. “Wow,” said one adviser to a rival campaign after listening to Paul’s blame-America lecture. “I haven’t heard anything like that this side of Rosie O’Donnell.”

Any guesses whose campaign that anonymous wag was working for?

DR

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, that is irrelevant. I suggest you research Jethro Tull, a band, and the album Thick as a Brick.

Ponder on why.

Osama Bin Laden didn't give two farthings about Saddam, other than as an obstacle to his aims, nor Iran. Osama got himself a massive cause celebre by the US troops showing up in Saudi, and on them remaining there after the first Iraq war, on the premise that Crusader scum did not belong on the holy soil of Arabia, the land of the Prophet, the land of Mecca and Medinah, which was part of the excuse/fig leaf for the US to toss Saddam out of Kuwait: protecting the holy land from Saddam's possible future expansion. (Consider that the Saudi King took this line, as part of the fun.) Osama's objection to American soldiers on Saudi soil sold well in some parts of the Arab Street, and was a source of friction between him and members of the Royal Family, Saud, to the point that it resulted in Osama's exile.

DR

Thank you for making this point for me.
Here are some Quotes from Wikipedia. Osama is CLEARLY reffering to US middle east policies, wrong?

It is a known fact that America is against the establishment of any Islamic state.

On what basis does America accuse this group of emigrants who wage jihad for God's sake, against whom there is no evidence other than that of injustice, oppression and hostility?

Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to ... the continuous injustice inflicted upon our sons in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, southern Sudan, and ... Kashmir.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thank you for making this point for me.
Here are some Quotes from Wikipedia. Osama is CLEARLY reffering to US middle east policies, wrong?

Then why did you link to Saddam's political connections, rather than the matter at hand, Osama and the Salafist, and other Islamist, movements? And why do you bring in the red herring of Kashmir? That is the US fault? Ever heard of India?

Saddam was a progressive, for an Arab, and a Ba'athist, and thus well on the secular side as an Arab, in practice.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Then why did you link to Saddam's political connections, rather than the matter at hand, Osama and the Salafist, and other Islamist, movements?

Saddam was a progressive, for an Arab, and a Ba'athist, and thus well on the secular side as an Arab, in practice.

DR

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

I was reffering to him to show that Ron Paul was right when saying that the US-Middle-East Politics is causing "Blow-Backs". Saddam is just one example of what he was referring to - and he is right.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

No sheet, Sherlock. Do you do weddings and Bat Mitzvahs? I may need to hire you for entertainment: Oliver impersonates Mr MOTO.

I was reffering to him to show that Ron Paul was right when saying that the US-Middle-East Politics is causing "Blow-Backs". Saddam is just one example of what he was referring to - and he is right.

Why not link to something on topic, which was Ron Paul and 9-11 and blow back, all in a stew. There is a plethora of blow back material there, no need to introduce a Saddam, or a Kashmir, red herring to this dinner plate.

DR

 

[Oliver]

No sheet, Sherlock. Do you do weddings and Bat Mitzvahs? I may need to hire you for entertainment: Oliver impersonates Mr MOTO.

Why not link to something on topic, which was Ron Paul and 9-11 and blow back, all in a stew. There is a plethora of blow back material there, no need to introduce a Saddam, or a Kashmir, red herring to this dinner plate.

DR

You don't get my point here which is:

Ron Paul said the truth - and that's exactly what everyone in my environment thought when 9/11 happened: "Now the US got a reply for their foreign policies". And not: "Oh my God, they must hate our Freedoms"-Bull*hit.

And Giuliani's reply was stupid as hell: "I never heard such a ridiculous thing that WE are responsible ...blahblahblah." - what a naive moron.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You don't get my point here which is:

Ron Paul said the truth - and that's exactly what everyone in my environment thought when 9/11 happened: "Now the US got a reply for their foreign policies". And not: "Oh my God, they must hate our Freedoms"-Bull*hit.

And Giuliani's reply was stupid as hell: "I never heard such a ridiculous thing that WE are responsible ...blahblahblah." - what a naive moron.

Oliver, who do you think you are arguing with?

Those responsible for 9-11 are the people who drove the planes into the buildings, do you understand that? The excuse they used was "we don't like America due to X" which is of course different from the "they hate us for our freedom" wheeze, which you note that I DONT SUBSCRIBE TO.

Rudy is spouting a particular party line, as anyone with a brain can recognize, but in it there is an element of truth. We are not responsible for Osama's decision and his team's, to act, though American policy forms part of the political environment of the stuff that goes on in the middle east.

Do you need the word "responsible" explained to you? Better yet, don't you have some laundry to do on the CT forum?

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Ron Paul said the truth - and that's exactly what everyone in my environment thought when 9/11 happened: "Now the US got a reply for their foreign policies".

Wait, are you saying OBL was right to do what he did?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, who do you think you are agruing with?

Those responsible for 9-11 are the people who drove the planes into the buildings, do you understand that? The excuse they used was "we don't like America due to X" which is of course different from the "they hate us for our freedom" wheeze, which you note that I DONT SUBSCRIBE TO. Rudy is spouting a particular party line, as anyone with a brain can recognize, but in it there is an element of truth. We are not responsible for Osama's decision and his team's, to act, though American policy forms part of the political environment of the stuff that goes on in the middle east.

Do you need the word "responsible" explained to you? Better yet, don't you have some laundry to do on the CT forum?

DR

You still refuse to understand. US foreign policy lead to 9/11 - no matter if directly or indirectly. And while were at the 19 Hijackers and OBL:

Why IRAQ and not Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia or just OBL himself - you know, the guys who actually WHERE involved in 9/11?

The whole Iraq war leads to more terrorism - that was exactly what Ron Paul meant and this is what this thread is about, isn't it?